Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 29 August	31 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of PaintShop Pro releases[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG as it's almost entirely sourced to jasc.com, corel.com or paintshoppro.com, all WP:PRIMARY sources. Does not demonstrate standalone notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Lol, so much of WP:NOT is highly specific and over time much of it is interpreted more broadly at AFD as the project developed, but this is a rare instance of a really damn obvious violation of this. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to PaintShop Pro#History per the reasons above. Should be redirected though because the article does get around 1,000 views per month. I mean, the notice of the "main article" at the top says it all. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concurr that it violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG.Knox490 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue of every single version release for a particular software. Ajf773 (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page in question is an instance of mass copyright violation. Its contents has been often copied verbatim from its sources. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for details. Seeing this, I ask myself, what made Wikipedia contributors spend time adding and maintaining this rapidly aged pile of text to Wikipedia. Is it really important for us (let alone the next generation) to know that PaintShop Pro 10.1 added "new support for Raw files from Nikon D50, Canon EOS Kiss Digital N, Olympus E-1/E-10/E-20 cameras"? In fact, so important as to infringe on copyright? Or maybe, they were so unimportant that contributors did not bother rewriting them in their own words. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Flowing Dreams. Barca (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breifne Mountains[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There no reliable sources citing article subject Nmclough (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place names database of Ireland (https://www.logainm.ie/en/105009?s=Br%c3%a9ifne) has no entry. No primary, secondary, and tietary sources (english/irish) can be found - except a company named 'Breifne Mountains Ltd' and related 'Breifne Mountains project'. Non-notable! Nmclough (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nmclough (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note The name appears to have been invented for a 2003 tourism branding project. See [1], [2] ----Pontificalibus 12:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tentatively. I looked at User:Pontificalibus's two sources but, due to only selected random pages being made available to me, I can't see how the "Briefne" name was derived or anything much else. Is it a portmanteau or other conjunction of abbreviations or whatever? It currently seems not notable to me. Perhaps others will have access to info not available to me, and YMMV. --Doncram (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Oh, okay, the article links to Kingdom of Breifne, an existing article, which seems adequate coverage of the "Breifne" idea. There is not adequate evidence that "Breifne" is a current thing, AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Lion in the Meadow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book has not received sufficient coverage or been credited with sufficient influence to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Noahe123 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is just a stub of an article but the book won the major children's book award in New Zealand. The author is so well known for her children's books that she has an award, the Margaret Mahy Award, named after her. The article was nominated for deletion by the editor who created it then rescued it from speedy deletion, so I am quite confused here. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mahy doesn't quite meet NBOOK criteria 5 but she's closer to meeting that than this book not being notable. A republish 20 years later alone should indicate notability. Coverage of the book includes [doi:10.1353/uni.2015.0019 Article] examining the book's use of animals, a 1970 review, and an examination of the New Zealand influences in the book. I would suggest these kinds of sources, two of which skew towards academic examination of the work, strongly suggests notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the Google Scholar search provides other evidence of notability (and should have turned up evidence of such during a WP:BEFORE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49, but (note: the following is not (quite:)) exhaustive), winner of 2002 HCAA (and nominated twice before), the "Nobel Prize for children's literature", multiple winner of Carnegie Medal (1982, 1984), Esther Glen Award (1970, 1973, 1983, 1985, 1993, 2001), New Zealand Children's Book Awards (Children's Book of the Year award - 1999, 2011; Picture Book category - 1999, 2011; Junior Fiction category - 1993; Senior fiction category - 2003; and Honour Award - 2000, 2001, 2006, 2010), Phoenix Award (2005, 2007), winner of: Boston Globe–Horn Book Award (2009), Sir Julius Vogel Award for services to science fiction and fantasy (2006), Prime Minister's Awards for Literary Achievement for fiction (2005), named an Icon artist in 2005, granted honorary doctorates from University of Canterbury in 1993 and University of Waikato in 2005, received the Order of New Zealand (the highest honour in New Zealand's royal honours system and restricted to a maximum of 20 living members) in 1993, and a NZ literary award - Margaret Mahy Award being named after her, probably does mean that Mahy meets no. 5 of WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, well we can argue about whether Mahy inherently meets NBOOK 5 or not (I would want some verifiable evidence that she has been studied in such a way rather than presuming it) but I think we're in complete agreement this book is hugely and clearly notable and that Mahy herself is a landmark figure in children's literature. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (if, for example, she was from the USA it would probably be a slam dunk ie. units/courses studying her literary style, storytelling techniques and so on), thanks Barkeep49, oh, and i forgot to include this from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography that summarises her nicely: "Margaret Mahy is New Zealand’s most celebrated writer for children and young adults." and concludes with "Literary critics, however, acknowledge her as a ground-breaking young adult novelist and one of New Zealand’s greatest writers, equal in imaginative power and achievement to Katherine Mansfield and Janet Frame." Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, I think some of it reflects the stature of children's literature and not just Mahy being a Kiwi. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, due to what i said above and also winning a major book award. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also chosen as one of five Mahy' books to appear on NZ postage stamps - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The book has won at least one major award. Although more information about the story itself is needed to be added to the article but it doesn't deserve deletion. Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per all the above - in particular this title won top national award. PamD 09:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The issue of the article being unsourced has been addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maixent Poitevin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a local politician. Doesn't even have an article at fr.wiki. Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poitiers is a large enough city that its mayors would likely be eligible to have articles if they were properly sourced, but it is not so large as to make its mayors "inherently" notable just for serving as mayors or to exempt them from actually having to show any sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally unsourced article. Having recently gone through the entirety of articles in Category:1843 births I am aware we have a lot of articles on deceased people that have 0 sources, so this is a large problem in the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Played a key role in defending the besieged town of Poitiers in 1569 during the French Wars of Religion. Added source both in English and French. Genium . 16:57, Sep 3, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Genium . 16:57, Sep 3, 2019 (UTC)

Keep - important historical figure in the history France, and Poitiers in particular - the fact that he is still being mentioned in books as recently as 2004 shows WP:SUSTAINED - sources have been added to the article, so it now meets WP:GNG - also, we can assume there are more sources in French (WP:NPOSSIBLE says "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.") - hopefully the citations can be increased over time by those knowledgeable of French history - Epinoia (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOSSIBLE has nothing to do with assumptions. It kicks in only if you show hard evidence that better sources definitely do exist, and does not apply if you simply speculate about the possibility that better sources might exist — if all you had to do to save an article from deletion was to say that it was possible that there might be better sources out there than anybody has actually found yet, then even total hoaxes wouldn't be deletable from Wikipedia anymore. So the argument that notability is based on the existence of solid sources, and not necessarily the state of the sourcing already present in the current version of the article, only applies to sources that are actually located and shown. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that in its original unsourced form, this wasn't worth keeping, but several reasonable-looking sources have been added. My own searching finds a bunch more mentions in French books. Given that this person lived 500 years ago, I'm happy to go with weaker sourcing than we would for contemporary biography. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. D. Baker (author)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also dubious of his merit. The whole thing reads as if it was written by the publisher as a blurb. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a case of WP:COI, just as the article states, that content about the subject was "provided by PrestonSpeed Publications." A Google search turned up zero coverage, other than a Q&A in Today's Christian Woman, an evangelical Christian periodical and website, which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Also fails WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we clearly had way too loose creation criteria back in 2006 when this article was created, and have clearly not adequately reviewed articles for inclusion since. It amazes me how many articles that have been around well over 10 years come here to AfD that have exactly 0 reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Layte[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure Layte meets any of the WP:NPROF criteria. I don't think the Economic and Social Research Institute meets the same threshold of significance that universities do, where professors are generally considered notable. None of the articles referenced are substantially about Layte, they just quote him, so they don't support a claim of notability under WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find anything substantial about him that would swing NPROF or GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he's over the notability bar based on citation counts (C1). GS shows the subject as first or second author on numerous publications each cited >100 times. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, regarding nominator's point about Economic and Social Research Institute. The info in the article was obsolete. Since 2014 the subject is a Professor of Sociology at Trinity College Dublin. I added the relevant info, with a ref, to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of his highly-cited papers in Google Scholar are multi-author, but if one looks only at the first-author or single-author ones they still have citation counts 153 ("The association between income inequality and mental health"), 133, 108, 104, 103, etc. That's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And the full professorship and department chair at TCD, while not enough for notability themselves, are also suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject seems to be enough notable to justify having an article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass WP:PROF due to cites. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to provide a copy to anyone interested in developing the content towards a merger Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Eadeh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person (fails WP:BASIC) and the material about the controversy that the subject was recently involved in violates WP:DEL-REASON#9 Flaughtin (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability whatsoever; with regards to pre-cleanup version of article, WP:NOTNEWS applies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a low level government employee with no signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE,WP:BASIC. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not-notable person.Ms.bletvok (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Hong Kong's Gang of Four This individual seems to be the exemplar of why WP:BLP1E exists. Contrary to the article creator's assertion, being a career diplomat does not make one a public person. But as there is no accusation of a crime detailed in the article, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply (I bring this up as the nominator cited that in edit summaries on the article and I don't think it's actually relevant here). That said, as every bit of notability she has stems from her meeting with Demositso, an the publicity that garnered, she's only notable for one event, which makes her inappropriate for an independent article. However, there's ample reliable coverage of her involvement in this notable event within the Hong Kong protests for inclusion of any relevant and reliably sourced material to be included there. I should note that there is substantial Chinese language coverage in a variety of sources that mention her. It's all about this event. The argument that the content itself violates WP:DEL-REASON #9 seems like over-reach. However there's no evidence of independent notability. Finally, a word of caution, as the creator of this article is an SPA with a strong POV, I'd recommend that when content regarding this event is merged into the appropriate article, that it be done through consultation at article talk and / or at WP:BLP/N prior to inclusion in main space. BLP is a complicated area of Wikipedia, and new users frequently run afoul of expectations there. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I received contact from the page creator who claims they don't actually know how to reply to AfDs (as they are very new). They claim they have evidence of notability to present though I've told them I'm skeptical of that. But let's not close this discussion too speedily. We don't want to WP:BITE the newbies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a narrow consensus that sources support the notability of this subject. bd2412 T 03:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrez Bergen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person seems to fail WP:MUSIC as well as WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG as almost all sources I've been able to find appear to be either self-published or an interview with the subject - certainly not " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've already pointed out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Andrez Bergen that this is effectively a third nomination of this article, and that the previous nominations reached no consensus. I'm not saying that this is a good argument for keeping the article, just that interested editors should probably consider the two previous nominations when making their decision. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His album Pop Tart was reviewed in at least four music magazines including Rolling Stone. His album Action Hero was reviewed in two mainstream newspapers. That's enough coverage for music#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Album reviews are not in-depth coverage of the artist, but coverage of the recording. Album reviews don't satisfy WP:BAND #1 because they are about the album, not the artist. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, WP:NMUSIC - "The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works." Bolding added. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO per duffbeerforme. Also passes WP:AUTHOR, for reviews: 1, 2, and 3.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to point out something for those making their arguments based on the quality of publications with reviews: note that the Rolling Stone review cited is not from the well-known, celebrated magazine/web site owned (at the time) by Jann Wenner, but rather by an independent franchisee in another country that licenses the title "Rolling Stone" to publish content of local interests. That said, while the quality/notability of the specific franchisee vary widely from country to country, the Australian version--which is where this one appeared in issue #55--is one of the more significant editions. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Duffbeerfor as WP:NMUSIC defines coverage of a musicians works as significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CMV Music[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Part of a series of articles related to the Bangledeshi music industry. There are a number of references in this article but none meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Most of the references fail WP:ORGIND as they are based on company announcements or rely entirely on information from company sources and have no Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.The content of this article is based on its Bangla equivalent on Bangla Wikipedia.--Nahal^(T) 06:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough "Deep or significant coverage" to satify WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGSIG - there are two links in the article to press-release style stories about the company re-starting in 2016, but nothing since - a minor, non-notable record company - just existing is not notable - Epinoia (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete. probably notable record label from Bangladesh. but i didn't find any reliable source, which source pass WP:NCORP, fail WP:NCORP. i also found this article based on Bangla Wikipedia.--Nahal^(T) 07:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant sources to establish WP:NCORP, Alex-h (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above rationale, WP:NCORP. (Found this article on Special:Random so I couldn't pass up the chance to cast a !vote.) Utopes (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage to satify WP:CORPDEPTH. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (procedural close). There are a considerable number of editors opining that a single outcome for all of these lists is impossible, and even among those that do not, this discussion has become too fragmented. There are also concerns that the creators have not been notified, although I have not investigated each of those. So I'm closing this as no consensus, with the expectation that the lists will be nominated at AfD individually. Feel free to link from one discussion to another, so that participants who have done due diligence may express useful opinions at each of the discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim writers and poets[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing to show that they are practicing 'Muslims' or believers. See the previous AfD on a similar list, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim doctors. Störm (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because religion has no place in someones profession:

Pinging previous participants, maybe they want to comment. @Ajf773:, @Johnpacklambert:, @Ajf773:, @Dodger67:, @Ozzie10aaaa:, @Hispring:, @Squeeps10:. Störm (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such a list could exist but must then be limited to authors who specifically write about Islam. Which of course does not mean they have to be Muslim. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except for List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Muslims in entertainment and the media, and List of Muslim leaders and politicians as failing WP:EGRS. The rest should have entries attributed to reliable sources, like the articles themselves. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EGRS is about categories not lists. It seems to be all over the place in its guidance and says that outcomes vary wildly. There are in fact numerous categories of this kind – see Category:Muslims by occupation, which has many sub-categories. Andrew D. (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all This is a trainwreck already because of the canvassing of editors who all !voted delete before while failing to notify the creators of these various pages. There are numerous books which cover Muslim contributions to arts and sciences of various sorts and so WP:LISTN is passed and the nomination quite fails to address this. Some examples follow. Andrew D. (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pen and the Faith: Eight Modern Muslim Writers and the Qur'an
Boundaries and Frontiers in Medieval Muslim Geography
1001 Inventions: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilization
A History of Muslim Historiography
Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists
Science & Islam: A History
Islam and Science, Medicine, and Technology

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apologies for the need to add this afd to such a ridiculous number of afd lists but this is what happens when such a ridiculous number of articles are nominated under the one afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - doesn't the existence of Category:Lists of people by belief suggest that we do, in fact, have lists like these? There are a lot more articles that fit this form (even just within the "Lists of Muslims") and I think we need a broader discussion about this. Guettarda (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all as useful lists populated by actual wp articles. Trout to the nominator for blatant canvassing. Really these many AfDs should be closed based on that bad faith canvassing. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fourth of the world's population is Muslim, making these massively overbroad cross-categorizations. Of course science in the Muslim world is a historical topic, but I laugh at the idea that the existence of a book called "Islam and Science, Medicine, and Technology" means that a list of Muslim doctors and a list of Muslim scientists are themselves notable; rather, all of Andrew D's books provide content for articles like Islamic attitudes towards science, Science in the medieval Islamic world, Islamic literature, and Islamic art, not context-free lists of names without narrow inclusion criteria. You can put more biographical details of significant individuals in those pages, but without major restructuring none of these nominated work as stand-alone lists. I find it interesting that about everyone at List_of_Muslims_in_entertainment_and_the_media#Journalism_and_media works in English-speaking news media. The thousands in Category:Pakistani politicians, Category:Indonesian politicians, etc. could be imported in mass to List of Muslim leaders and politicians. List of Moroccan writers is somehow longer than List of Muslim writers and poets! List of Iranian painters is longer than List of Muslim painters! Also disappointed by the lack of sources and that I just had to remove someone from the business list. I fear that the bulk nomination would derail this, but this calls for TNT. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all pending thorough discussion about each one individually. We can’t just junk a mass of articles in this arbitrary fashion. There are valid lists for an encyclopaedia for topics like geography and science, because classical Islamic scholarship began at a defined date and ended at dates which are also generally agreed, making them definable and notable topics (though the names of some of the lists might need to change). Other lists which are more or less ‘people on tv with name that sound Muslim to me’ should be deleted, but they can’t been done as a job lot. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck geographers list based on your reservation. Störm (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:SALAT as too broad. Also, religion is generally irrelevant with respect to these fields, on a par with (or even slightly below) List of left-handed painters or List of blond poets. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vague wave to WP:SALAT is misleading because that guideline does not recommend deleting broad classifications. Instead, it suggests adding more structure such as sections, to subdivide the entries and so assist the reader. The claim that religion is irrelevant to these fields is also false. For example, leaders and politicians in the Muslim world are commonly expected to follow the religion or even be descended from the Prophet – see Political aspects of Islam. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the above comments, I've withdrawn few nominations, they are: List of Muslim geographers, List of Muslim scientists, and List of Muslim astronomers. I think they were useful if we limit them to the medieval Islamic world, so I went ahead and removed recent biographies from them. Other lists are clearly WP:LISTCRUFT and are obvious deletes. Störm (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks to he nominator for reducing the scope of this to something more manageable. On the main article nominated, List of Muslim writers and poets, it looks to me like a catch-all and I think we’d need some supporting evidence in each case that the person listed was actually a Muslim and did not just have Muslim heritage, so that it has the same rigour as List of Catholic authors. We have a List of Catholic artists but that is based on their creation of Catholic religious art, not their actual or supposed beliefs. For this reason I can’t see any basis for retaining List of Muslim painters. Each item in the List of Muslims in entertainment and the media does seem to be individually sourced so it may be reliable, and it is the kind of thing I can imagine people looking to Wikipedia to provide, so that one looks like it should be kept. List of Muslim leaders and politicians looks completely scattergun and useless. There may be some value in having a much smaller list of Muslim politicians in countries with a non-Muslim majority population. Likewise a list of Muslim businessmen in countries without a Muslim majority might have some value (questionable) but List of Muslims in business is a mix of every businessman in Saudi Arabia....and some other people. Happy to delete that one. Mccapra (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a mess. After the obvious canvassing of delete voters, the nominator has now altered the nomination. This nomination should be withdrawn WP:SKCRIT. A new AfD should be opened so that we can start fresh without these serious violations of process. Lightburst (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make productive comments as they would be more helpful. Störm (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related Discussion - I consider it appropriate to link to an ANI discussion that has been launched about the propriety of this AfD Nosebagbear (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. There are plenty of atheist related articles such as List of atheists in music even though atheism isn't particularly associated with music. On the other hand, Islam is extremely influential in Islamic cultures and it would make sense that it would affect the literature/poems in those cultures. In addition, Wikipedia's growth of religion, desecularization, postsecularism and Demographics of atheism all seem to indicate that atheists/secularists will decrease in cultural influence in the future while Muslims, Christians and other growing religions will increase in cultural influence and significance. Maybe it is a reflection of Wikipedia's editor base that an undue amount of "list of atheist..." articles exist. I suspect with the atheist population shrinking in its percentage of the world population and its expected shrinkage in Western nations by the latter part of the 21st century, Wikipedia's list of atheist related articles will be pruned.Knox490 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Lightburst. Islam gives a viewpoint to the poem or politician or business.Saff V. (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all too large, indiscriminate, and inviting of original research re the religion of living people. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There are potentially valid reasons to keep each article, but some of the reasons may or may not apply to each list. I think the lists could be much better defined, such as List of Muslims politicians in Luxembourg, or List of Muslim academics in Monaco, but those discussions should be held in the talk pages - not as part of a mass deletion effort. --Enos733 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename List of Muslim painters. There is a description at the start of that article a link to Islamic art. So rename it list of painters of Islamic art. Lists of Muslim scientists and scholars just lists three other lists articles, so if that's all it is going to be no point to it. List of Muslim scientists already redirects to List of scientists in medieval Islamic world. List of Muslim leaders and politicians, are they notable and get coverage for that aspect of them? Are there list of other religions or ethnic groups for politicians, entertainers, or businesses? Dream Focus 23:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus Good proposal. But you know Islam doesn't allow imagery, statues so no chance of artists in Islam. The artists who are on the list never made Islamic art. Störm (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? XOR'easter (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All of these lists are useful to the purpose of this encyclopedia, and the people who use it. They contain/point-to notable information. And yes, Islamic Art certainly does exist, for example a great collection is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. With all due respect to the good-faith intentions of the nominator, this AfD should be withdrawn. Netherzone (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of these lists are useful and some cross categories are not even relevant (eg. List of Muslim doctors). However, I suggest these lists are nominated individually.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - useful lists for the purpose of Wikipedia which contain or lead to articles with notable information. Bookscale (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, relist individually with individual rationales, if appropriate (but renaming these lists and narrowing their focus probably makes more sense than deletion). This AFD is too much of a mess to every reach a useful conclusion, and has been changed after people expressed their opinions. Guettarda (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for the moment. I think it was a mistake to bundle all these together and we need a sensible discussion about each one. As they stand I’d vote ‘keep’ for some and ‘delete’ for others. Mccapra (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists says, "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion" - WP:CAT/R says, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." These principles apply equally to lists - Epinoia (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Epinoia: yes and for some elements of some of these lists those sources exist. Some of the lists need sourcing and editing down. Some of the lists are probably not worth retaining even if we can source the fact that individuals on them are/were Muslims. But we can't just chuck the lot out, and we can't expect editors to run around trying to source a huge number of lists at the same time. Let's take them all one by one and we can have a sensible discussion about each. If this discussion was unbundled I would vote delete on the List of Muslim writers and poets itself because even for those names where we could source their belief (not difficult in many cases) it would still be too much of a catch-all and not a useful list in itself. But a discussion among editors might suggest some useful repurposing of the material. For historical and non-contentious individuals we might agree that a list by country, continent or historic period would be useful even if the current list isn't. It's just shoddy and slapdash to chuck all this in a skip. Mccapra (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not that theres anything wrong with chucking things into skips, says coola, who has retrieved a number of "treasures" from skips over the years:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists of Muslim scientists and scholars per nom. If we stop assuming that every Arab and Iranian is a Muslim, then the page ceases to have a purpose (since it would only contain List of Muslim scientists). Delete List_of_Muslim_painters as unuseful; its just an unreferenced list of names. If someone wants to categorize painters that way, just start Category:Muslim_painters. The others are likely to become so large that they're no longer useful some day. But they look fine for now, and "Looks fine. Maybe useful" are basically the criteria in WP:SALAT. Ajpolino (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources provided have not been explicitly refuted with respect to GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Vahe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. College offensive linemen almost never get significant coverage. Vahe is an exception who passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Examples include: (1) this two-parter from March 2017; (2) another two-parter from November 2015; (3) this from February 2015, and (4) this from August 2018; (5) this from August 2017; (6) this from August 2017; (7) this from August 2017; (8) this from September 2016; (9) this from November 2015; and (10) this from August 2013; and (11) this from August 2017. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeah although he didn't make the roster seems notable from his College days.Getmefood (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first criteria in WP:NGRIDIRON says that to be notable the player must "have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the fourth American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." He does not meet this criteria. Some have also highlighted that rule number 2 seems to offer an exception to this rule and that exception is that "unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days." I don't thinkNCAA players are inherently notable like the the NFL noted above and he also fails WP:NCOLLATH. IndusFish (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IndusFish: Your premise is flawed. It is long- and well-established that college football players are notable if they pass WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Player notability discussion library. Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm new. I tried my best to interpret. Should I delete my comment? IndusFish (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are always welcome, IndusFish. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG per Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoist (Transformers)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

proposed for delete, queryable, Transformers is a very well-known fictional scenario. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN:

Delete - The article fails to establish notability. It's just one of hundreds of characters in the series that has no viability as an article. @Anthony Appleyard:, also the AFD template on the article is broken. TTN (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a WP:MILL Transformers character Taewangkorea (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not show any difference with other characters, fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots where Hoist is already listed - Epinoia (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Daniel (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previously deleted and non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG. I did see some coverage on Indian news websites, but all of them were nothing more than trivial coverage (______ is starring in this movie..., etc.). Also, fails WP:NFILM. William2001^(talk) 19:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Knox490 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Note that there is also a draft, Draft:Jack Daniel (film) where work could continue if more coverage is found. -- Begoon 11:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Keegan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows notability per WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I only found two reviews of one of his books on JSTOR ([3] and [4], not counting three reviews of edited volumes), not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. But founding a journal in 1980, from a major publisher and still going today, looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C8 to me. The article needs serious cleanup to trim it from a cv-like listing of all minor accomplishments to an actual article, but that's not what AfD is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article mentions that in 1979 he founded the journal Distance Education. At the webpage of this journal he is listed as an 'Executive Editor Emeritus'. That presumably means that in the past he was the Executive Editor, which for this journal is the same as editor-in-chief. The journal is indexed by Scopus and WebofScience, and has an impact factor listed in Science Citation Reports (1.729 for 2018, and the 5-year impact factor of 2.844). So possibly satisfies WP:PROF#C8. Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I noted above, I think there is a reasonable case here for passing WP:PROF#C8. Also, citability in GScholar is impressive. The h-index is around 25, with 6 publications having over 200 citations each. The top-cited publication, his solo-authored 1986 book Foundations of distance education, has 3670 citations. (By the way, I found another review of that book [5].) For social sciences, that's quite good. Overall, and also taking into account the journal editorship, I think there is enough to to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to withdraw this per the keeps above, but I don't know how to close AfDs. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement that you would like to withdraw should already be enough. Someone should be around to close this shortly. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MicroEJ[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted and has no citations. A Google search reveals nearly no independent sources and most independent sources are nothing more than statistics about the company. I do not see multiple good sources for WP:GNG and this company also fails WP:NCORP. William2001^(talk) 19:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it provides information on a company that has contributed to design millions of electronics devices, and is often viewed as the "tiny Android" of the embedded market. The first version of the page had some references from customers, and those references have been removed to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Let us know if all is fine now. Thank you for your work at wikipedia
Alexandra —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandra Doria: Hello. I believe that I have removed the speedy deletion tag a while ago. As you work for this company, you clearly have a conflict of interest, which does not mean your contributions are invalid, but are you being paid to edit? Thanks. William2001^(talk) 00:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH - Epinoia (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaels[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to search (because of a much larger "group"), but they don't seem to satisfy WP:BAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no evidence they've toured nationally. Please ping me if you find any proof. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DataObjects.NET[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very recent AFD(the second nomination) was closed as Merge due to no consensus for anything except removal of the article. However, the page cannot be merged:

it does not contain any reliable independent sources. Insufficiently sourced content cannot be merged.
it does not fit the scope of the list it is supposed to be merged into(only notable topics are allowed into that list)

It can neither be redirected:

Because the article is outside of the scope of the list there is no valid reason to redirect. The redirect would not make any sense because it redirects to something else and cause confusion because the reader couldn't find what they look for on that page. A redlink would be more accurate. Lurking shadow (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AfD was closed as merge to List of .NET libraries and frameworks and DataObjects.NET has been on that list since November 2018. Many of the items on that list don't have Wikipedia articles, just links to their websites. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good argument to remove it and anything similarly notable) from the list(as it is not considered notable and outside of the scope of the list).Lurking shadow (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remove anything unsourced or only sourced to independent sources then there's nothing left. Nothing to merge, nothing to include in the list.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of .NET libraries and frameworks with minimal merging. (No prejudice against Delete.) As I said in the previous AfD:
This AfD seems to be well-thought. My attempt to find anything about this subject was fruitless. I found a book on Amazon, but it was a copy of the Wikipedia article. So far, the only other option to deletion is giving it away to some other website that specializes in this material.
I have to express my surprise on the previous AfD having been closed as "merge", seeing as the two participants in it both advised "Redirect". flowing dreams (talk page) 06:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- flowing dreams, what would you merge? There's only one source in the entire article, and it's not a reliable independent source. There isn't place for any merge, not even minimal. Redirection is also dubious - the entire material about DataObjects.NET will be removed if it isn't sourced to a reliable independent source. As will much more...Lurking shadow (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually have just begun with that - DataObjects.NET was originally part of that list, now it isn't anymore(just like several others)Lurking shadow (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My dear colleague, a compromise entails some give and take. In the last AfD, both participants endorsed a "redirect" course of action, which is almost a "delete". But you disagreed; you wanted deletion and nothing else. Result: The article was kept instead. And now, in your so-called "Mass removal of very badly sourced entries" you've unlisted Windows Presentation Foundation, which has an entire article full of sources. It makes me think whether you actually care for the existence of sources or consensus. Be that as it may, I'm afraid I cannot help someone who so vehemently does not want my help. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - flowing dreams, that was a very bad error. Thanks for finding and fixing it. I wanted to remove the entry below and accidentally removed that entry that definitely shouldn't have been removed.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not seem to have improved since the last AfD, so delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero references, hence fails WP:V, hence can't be merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone did merge it, in compliance with the verdict of the previous AfD. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect to one of the appropriate targets. RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effemimania[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This term is a neologism coined by the gender theorist Julia Serano which has not gained wide acceptance or coverage. The sources currently are a book which mentions in passing that Serano coined the term[6]; Whipping Girl, the book in which Serano coined it[7]; a blog post quoting from Whipping Girl [8]; and an article on effeminacy which does not mention the term[9]. Looking for other sources, I found this, which lists it as one of "a proliferation of terms to describe discrimination rooted in femininity", and a handful of brief mentions of Serano developing the concept/coining the term:[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]"Serano also discusses the concept of effemimania, a concept she uses to conceptualise ..." It might be appropriate to merge/redirect to Whipping Girl, Julia Serano, or Transmisogyny, but the sources in my opinion are insufficient for a stand-alone article. gnu 57 17:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Whipping Girl per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too esoteric/obscure.Knox490 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism that never picked up steam. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator, I misread some of the sources and have found they are more then meet WP:POET (non-admin closure) CodeLyoko^buzz 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zodwa Nyoni[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:POET and the only really convincing source is the BBC article, the rest are passing mentions or published by Zodwa herself CodeLyoko^buzz 17:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^buzz 17:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^buzz 17:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^buzz 17:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... and the Times and the Guardian and in Zimbabwe and ... Victuallers (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Victuallers: You mention a Times source, but I don't see one in the article? Agree that the Guardian and New Zimbabwe sources are good, as well as the BBC News. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Sources are more than sufficient. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The redirect suggestion at first seems plausible, but based on the discussion here, it's not clear this even meets WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes (Transformers)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots, where the character is already listed. Neither version of the character has any notability whatsoever, and one of them apparently doesn't actually exist outside of an April Fools joke. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Hoist (Transformers) was recently deleted, this article should be too as non-notable - Epinoia (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Diabetes.co.uk; there is no support for keeping as is, and redirects are cheap. bd2412 T 03:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes Digital Media[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Parent company of Diabetes.co.uk a notable entity. However, coverage in the article either fails to meet WP:NORG criteria of being signficiant independent second coverage from a reliable source or is actually coverage of Diabates.co.uk. This redirect was reverted by both an IP and now a registered user, if one who appears to be SPA. The article is also promotionally written though not excessively so but is a further reason there should be one article instead of two. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was boldly redirected twice, but the redirect was contested; ergo, SOFTDELETE is not an option, in my view. This needs an active consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diabetes.co.uk where Diabetes Digital Media is mentioned - Epinoia (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tangential commentary aside, the more relevant comments make a good case for deletion due to lack fo real-world notability. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtnap (comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in-universe focused article that on a WP:BEFORE doesn't have notability independent of the subject. WP:GNG is not met; this article would be better suited for a Wikia. A redirect is a bit insensible since I don't see the disambiguation as being a term to be searched. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. BOZ (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marvel is thriving on the big screen but lagging in comic sales. [17] It could implode like DC comics. Marvel seems to be focusing more on being politically correct and that is turning off a lot of its readers.[18]. The USA and Western World is deeply divided politically and taking a side in the culture wars can be very bad for business. And I don't see a character named Dirtnap making a sensation on the big screen so this is not a case of WP:Too Soon. Captain America is much more a "leading man" character for the big screen than Dirtnap. And because Marvel comics was bought by Disney which also leans left politically, I don't see Marvel getting out of the political influence focus and instead focus more on gaining market share. In other words, Marvel comics will keep losing market share and become less profitable. Eventually, it could go out of business like DC Comics.Knox490 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this addresses Wikipedia:deletion policy or the existence or non-existence of in-depth sourcing to support an article. Uncle G (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me to be more in the category of "rambling diatribe"? BOZ (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft, belongs in Wikia only._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. I don't see the character mentioned at Hellions or Generation X, and Dark Riders I think also fails GNG. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vedontakal Vrop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional opera. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this construct.
Fails WP:GNG, which requires that a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources [NB: sources plural] that are independent of the subject" in order to qualify for an article on Wikipedia.
The only source listed which is not itself the novel in which the fictional opera appears is this dead link to a PhD thesis. Even leaving aside the fact that unpublished theses are not typically regarded as reliable sources, this is not significant coverage as the fictional opera is not discussed "directly and in detail". The thesis covers the fictional opera on pages 96-98, but almost all of this space is taken up with lengthy verbatim quotation from the fictional opera itself, with the barest of commentary thereupon. If this is the sole basis on which it is asserted that the article meets our notability policy, it is staggeringly thin. Amisom (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP thesis can be used "but care should be exercised": if possible it should be "cited" somewhere (this paper has not cited anywhere). It should be "published" (this paper has not been published). It should be publicly available from a library like Proquest (it is not). And "they are often, in part, primary sources" of which this paper is primarily "verbatim quotation from the fictional opera itself". Eliminate this problematic source and there is nothing left to demonstrate notability. A single minor mention in a problematic unpublished student thesis is not significant coverage. -- GreenC 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither of the novels this fictional opera appears in are particularly notable - does not meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per a DAB version WP:HEY, thanks to all (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urbane[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This DAB page has existed since its inception as a single entry, based on a single use of this name in the book of Romans. And that single use is based on one specific translation; other translations use the name Urbanus instead of Urbane. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this page is a bizarre merger of a non-notable company and a non-notable name. Amisom (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's LG Watch Urbane and Urbane Magazine. Add those, strip the Pakistan corp. Then keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I've removed the non-notable company info...but this is non-standard otherwise as it merely mentions the Bible verse in a form not seen in any other short page. There just isn't enough for a DAB for the two defunct things mentioned above. Nate • (chatter) 14:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The additions from Tavix now make this a definite keep. Nate • (chatter) 16:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what Hyperbolick found, there were a couple notable people with the name, making it suitable for Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Hyperbolick and Tavix. The simple and easy solution. One note: urbanity was mentioned on the article talk page over 14 years ago. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find! I've added an entry to link to urbanity, although I'm not married to the wording. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the improvements made. Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn -- thanks for the improvements!!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted by another admin in the relist comment, most of the Keep comments are not very convincing, and they are outnumbered by the more cogent Delete comments. Since articles on this subject have been repeatedly recreated, I will be create protecting this title. RL0919 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Gratton[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted at AfD in December 2012, twice recreated and deleted in 2013 under Dean Anthony Gratton then, presumably because recreation was blocked, created again in the current incarnation by a new single issue account. Admittedly, the article is far less promotional and self-serving now, but the subject remains non-notable. The only suggestion of notability is an article in the town newspaper saying Gratton was awarded an honorary doctorate, but strangely doesn't reveal the subject or the college that awarded it. I can't find any other online evidence to back up this claim. No evidence of any other reliable independent in-depth coverage about Gratton. Time for it to go, a second time, in my opinion (his wife, a social media personality, has similarly had her account recreated under a different name to the one she is known as, to avoid a block). Sionk (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is Dean Anthony Gratton and I would gratefully request that user Sionk reach out to me via my website (rather than make my email address public) to address this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.31.175 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject fails this criteria and has I can not find any real sources to show that they pass WP:GNG. Josalm64rc (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, I don't find any sign to show the subject is notable Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He has published several books with highly-rated academic publishers, and was editor of a significant part of the Bluetooth specifications. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gratton has authored academic books and is noted for his work with technology. He is also credited as a director and producer on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9087865/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinAndrewMoon (talk • contribs) 07:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)— KevinAndrewMoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck due to ban evasion.[reply]
- Note that this is a returning sockpuppeteer, who wrote the prior (deleted) article. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opn800. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply publishing books does not make someone notable, and working on notable software does not make someone notable either. Where are in-depth book reviews published in reliable sources, or the independent coverage of his importance to the bluetooth project?----Pontificalibus 13:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In context, this is an advertisement. I suspect "honorary doctorate in Psychology" is likely to mean one without any actual academic work awarded by a pseudo-university. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published author and columnist; appeared in his local press with several stories and is known online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.251.171.164 (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several academic publications and mention in the press as well as numerous references online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.214.134 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The decision on whether to keep the article should be based on Gratton's notability and on whether there are reliable sources to create a worthwhile article. The current state of the article and any suspicions that Gratton has contributed to it or has inappropriately pressed for its retention are not valid considerations. We certainly should not attempt to punish him by 'salting' the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the third time it has been recreated, after being deleted at AfD. It's also been plagued by a long history of sockpuppetry. All a clear violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I expect this will be more of an embarrassment to Gratton if he genuinely hasn't written the article himself. Sionk (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability derived from several local press articles plus extensive Google results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.53.31 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ Searched Google for him and found notable references to include press, interviews and TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.203.2 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Books, articles, notable sources across Google and YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.110.16 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In his local press and online with loads of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.172.44 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I really have to say, if this article is kept based on a sudden rush of unsigned generic 'keep' comments (with no proof supplied) from different IP addresses, it will make Wikipedia a joke!! Sionk (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, but I think this is unlikely, see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The contributions from unregistered users all make the same points and while they should not be dismissed, their influence should not be treated as cumulative.

The snide comments about Gratton's qualifications are inappropriate, whether or not they are justified. As it happens, there is some evidence that his doctorate is bone fide. In one of his books published by the Cambridge University Press he is referred to as Dr Dean Anthony Gratton.[19] We should be able to rely on the CUP to check that their author's qualifications are not presented in a misleading manner. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any 'snide' comments. I'd be grateful if you retracted that. Sionk (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: I interpreted your comment "but strangely doesn't reveal the subject or the college that awarded it" as suggesting that Gratton had bought a doctorate from a degree mill. Another editor then made more explicit comments suggesting his. I apologise if I have misinterpreted your words. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New source, in response to the question Where are in-depth book reviews published in reliable sources, here is one:
- Henderson, David B (21 April 2014). "The handbook of personal area networking technologies and protocols". Computing Reviews. Association for Computing Machinery.

The ACM is a highly-rated learned society. We could do with more sources of this quality, but this is significant progress. I suspect that there may be more good sources out there. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another new source. A ProQuest search reveals another review for the handbook:

Benedicenti, L. (October 2014). "The handbook of personal area networking technologies and protocols". Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 52 (2): 297.

That brings us up to two sources for the book, which means it meets WP:NBOOK. That's as far as I've got here. Haukur (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this one more time solely to allow for discussion of the additions sources brought forth towards the end of the discussion as it currently stands. The "keep" arguments posited by the IP editors are entirely unconvincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked more into this now and tried hard to find more RS reviews for his books, without any success. That leaves us with two reviews of The Handbook of Personal Area Networking Technologies and Protocols and no other significant, independent, reliable sources, as far as I can see. So, if someone wants to write an article on that book (which could have one or two sentences about the author) we could leave a redirect here. Otherwise, delete unless more sources show up. Haukur (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's really good someone tried to get this working, but if there's no more to be found, then there's not established notability. Significant coverage is required, and this subject just does not have it. The self-promotional tone of the article is also suggestive of a potential WP:COI. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient depth-of-coverage from reliable sources. I only see a single source from a local news site (https://www.barryanddistrictnews.co.uk/) that might qualify; that article appears to be a press release. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says:

Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.

And WP:VAIN says What used to be called "vanity" is now called a "conflict of interest". Verbcatcher (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you're making these points in the interests of fairness and encouraging a reasoned AfD discussion, but aren't all of the 'Delete' comments so far on the basis of WP:GNG? Sionk (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient breadth and depth of coverage from reliable sources. No signficant impact on society either.Knox490 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to David Gemmell. No consensus on redirecting the other two articles; anybody is free to do that if they feel the need. Also, no prejudice against somebody writing a better article per WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troy: Shield of Thunder[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is probably notable, but the article is crap and needs a dose of WP:TNT. It contains only plot summary (probably copyvio, in the case of the blurb), and is tagged as unsourced for over 10 years. See WP:V, MOS:REALWORLD. Sandstein 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this article and Troy: Lord of the Silver Bow and Troy: Fall of Kings to David Gemmell. This problem isn't exclusive to Shield of Thunder. I couldn't find anything on a WP:BEFORE, but my resources are a bit limited. For now, perhaps a redirect of all three to the author who wrote them is the best solution until notability is established, if it can be. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book has received multiple reviews and clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Here are three: [20] [21] [22] This is also interesting coverage: [23] But the current text is arguably worse than nothing so I'm fine with deleting it. Haukur (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwal Toor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail GNG spectacularly. Rayman60 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No depth-of-coverage in reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Worsham[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An MMA fighter with a record of 13 and 10 with an obscure title doesn't leave much of a media record. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The material about his participation in early UFC events, if it were properly sourced, might make him notable as historically significant. However otherwise this seems mostly like a memorial page to a middling fighter who died far too young. And while I'm sympathetic to that, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and don't believe the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tao Hongliang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, this footballer played for a whooping six minutes in a professional league. But after that he disappeared from the scene, first being demoted to the junior team and later released. Fails WP:GNG and, except for the very short football career, fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically scarping by on WP:NFOOTBALL following one appearance nearly 3 years ago. Giant Snowman 08:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Happy with the above rationale, if we can prove he has been released. I've not found anything, though could easily have missed something. Soccerway still list him as part of Stabæk II, which would also mean Stabæk itself - which would therefore mean a keep. R96Skinner (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no recent news reports about his release - because it is too minor for even local media to care. Soccerway is not an authoritative source on obscure Norwegian football, NFF is sometimes better but not always. Stabæk 2 is no more a part of Stabæk than their under-20 or under-17 team is. Stabæk 2 is not a professional team, it is a mixture of reserves and junior players, and the team itself languishes near the bottom of the fourth tier. Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're making assumptions like that, you could assume the other way of there isn't any news about his release because he hasn't been released. Assumptions aren't appropriate. Stabæk II is connected to Stabæk, therefore he'd be part of an FPL-listed club which would merit a keep. So it is rather important. R96Skinner (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is the bottom line here, and it is verified that Tao was cut from the squad. And placed with the juniors (i.e. u20's). What has happened to him since is not within the WP:V or WP:GNG a domain, since it's not reported on. Also I think you are stretching the meaning of "being a part" of club. One does of course have to be a member of the squad that actually contests a professional league, not a club member per se. Geschichte (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stabæk and Stabæk II are the same club - that's pretty simple, and an odd thing to question. As I said, I'm content with this heading to deletion - hence why I haven't voted keep. If either of us are "stretching", that would be you. R96Skinner (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG regardless of whether may or may not technically satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL.----Pontificalibus 12:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to NFOOTY consensus. It is common to give an exception to ongoing careers. R96Skinner (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 103.200.134.149 (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any reasonably selective inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only two mentions of him is these two articles in brief sections [24] and [25] but other than that I can't see any other searches for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Aiazzi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician, total failure of WP:NPOL. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reno is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors, so the bar he would have to clear is that he could be reliably sourced as substantively a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. Simply being able to offer technical verification that he exists, via primary source content on the city's own self-published website and routine verification of election tallies, is not the ticket to notability for a city councillor in and of itself — but that's the only kind of sourcing being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reno is not even close to the level of size or importance to give council members notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Employers' Federation of Hong Kong[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of Notability. Sources are either closely related (see the reference), or are press releases, ~~and~~ or are passing mentions. No independent significant coverage from multiple sources. Fails GNG and CORPDEPTH. I would request speedy delete but the article does assert significance of this organization, and speedy delete would be declined. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread significant coverage, as might be expected for any extant national organization founded in 1947, especially given the fact this organsiation is part of the electoral college for the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. Sources include [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. ----Pontificalibus 11:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pontaficalibus. Mccapra (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a lot of work, but its clear the organisation is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the nominator. Three of the sources above show passing mention of this organization, nothing more, at most a couple of disparate paragraphs in a whole book. The second source [34] seems to indicate this organization is covered in part of a chapter, but there is no way to know how much. This organization garners about 112 electors. There 29 or 30 such organizations called "sub sectors" that have varying amount of electors from 24 to 500 to thousands of registered electors (see pages 117 to 124 on this link).

Then there is the general population who also vote as delineated in Hong Kong's universal suffrage laws. So 112 electors is not a significant amount. Also, four of the above sources do not show coverage of this organization [35], [36], [37], [38]. The last source mentioned here picks up on key words in the phrase and isn't showing this organization. So there doesn't seem to be widespread significant coverage. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you are using Google to search the sources correctly. For example you said it wasn't covered here, but if you search with quotes: [39].----Pontificalibus 17:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your original link was this: [40]. In any case, what you just posted: [[41], shows there is coverage in one part of chapter, and that's it. There's no way to know how much. But it is still not much coverage. More is needed to demonstrate significant independent coverage. Even in the link I posted, it is one paragraph among many in an appendix of a whole book. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"part of a chapter" is obviously "more than a trivial mention" which is the requirement of WP:SIGCOV. In any case there is an abundance of sources without even touching Chinese language publications.----Pontificalibus 13:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the coverage I've seen is not significant in depth coverage of the topic and nothing new has been added to change this observation. It's all the same sources. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Also Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:NOTPROMOTION. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, observable coverage consists of a couple of paragraphs in entire books in the sources where coverage can be seen. With the other sources that show only the name of this organization is in the book (and that's it), it can be assumed that these are also a couple of paragraphs. And these books contain a bunch of chapters with many sections in each chapter, with each section covering a different topic. So, if there is an aggregate of 110 or more sections then what I'm seeing is this topic has a couple of paragraphs that might comprise one section. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs in multiple books is fine. SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention - we just need enough details to write an article per WP:WHYN. The size of each publication and the relative proportion of the coverage are irrelevant.--Pontificalibus 05:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Coudreaut[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable outside of his company, lacks in-depth news references, no major WP:RS. Not sure, what he is really notable for. Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of company's executives. Most of the content is unsourced and seems to be created by WP:COI. Meeanaya (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'll try to add more text and citations here, but it's obvious from the exisiting refs that he's contributed a lot to the world's largest restaurant chain... $ɱ$ (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the nomination is incorrect: there are sufficient references about Coudreaut, including major/in-depth sources. The five sources cited are not just passing mentions of him - they are articles written solely about him. This passes WP:GNG easily, so I am not sure which policies the nominator is citing for deletion here. {{Like a resume}} is not an argument or condition for deletion.

ɱ

(talk) 13:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a fan of McDonald's but there is no doubt it is a cultural icon, a very large business and that Mr. Coudreaut played a significant role in the company.Knox490 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knox490. Arguably, his contribution to creating the McCafe drinks make him notable. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayna Cooke[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable outside of his company, lacks in-depth news references, no major WP:RS. For Groupon, she was not the chairman so, doesn't qualify for a page. Not sure, what she is really notable for. Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of company's executives. Meeanaya (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Cordish[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable outside of his company, lacks in-depth news references, no major WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of company's executives. Meeanaya (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on Self published source Saff V. (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

István Lanstyák[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio with no real claim to pass WP:NPROF. All the refs are to works by him, not sources about him. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he meets the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Kurzeja[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no real claim of notability in this bio, and apart from IMDb none of the ref links goes anywhere useful. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete No indication he's notable in the film business and I don't see the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalla Toure[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only played in one match as a substitute in the SuperLiga. Other than that we haven't heard much about him to satisfy WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- passes NFOOTY per at least one game. Antonio El Loco Loco Loco Martin (dime?) 05:32, 30 August, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically scarping by on WP:NFOOTBALL following one appearance 6 years ago. Giant Snowman 08:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources with which to write a biography.----Pontificalibus 12:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with GS and Pontificalibus; the total GNG fail outweighs the technical scraping by of NFOOTBALL with one appearance six years ago. I can find no secondary sources upon which we might base an article, just brief mentions like [42] [43] [44]. – Levivich 02:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - He made a pro debut, now it´s us failling to find where has he been afterwords. These players often get lost in some Asian leagues often being called differently... I´ll try to help. FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of precedent for deleting articles about footballers who make a single appearance in a fully-pro league yet have no coverage which would satisfy the GNG. I didn't turn up any non-routine coverage online. Jogurney (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw per @HawkAussie:'s request. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Teles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He hasn't played in a WP:FPL based league which would make him fail WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to his career page he seems to actually have played, albeit not much. He also seems to have been loaned out now to Condeixa. Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in the FPL LigaPro per this; young player with ongoing career, we keep. Giant Snowman 08:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can only echo what has been said above, career still ongoing after NFOOTY pass - which is consensus to keep. Teles is currently with Condeixa in the Campeonato de Portugal - per the Portuguese FA. R96Skinner (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the fact that this young man meets NFOOTY suggests that NFOOTY is overly inclusionist. We certainly can't write a well-sourced biography of him!—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but an AfD isn't the place to discuss whether current guidelines are correct or incorrect; as mentioned recently at AfD/Atantaake Tooma. R96Skinner (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Can someone withdraw this one for now. HawkAussie (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is some evidence for notability, but it is weak, which combined with low participation after two relists has left us without a consensus. RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otto bookstore[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The assertion made on this bookstore's website that it was established in either 1841 or 1877 and "America's Oldest Independently Owned Bookstore" would appear to me to have some credence given a cursory search I have done an the search links that will be included in this article's WP:AFD page. As far as I can see, those assertions are unsupported by independent third party reliable references that would be expected of, again, "America's Oldest Independently Owned Bookstore". As always: please prove me wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree - I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The claim of being the oldest independent bookstore appears to be research conducted by the owners. It is, of course, probably true, but fails our tests for independent content. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I would like to recommend a Redirect to List of independent bookstores in the United States, but that list is only for bookstores that have their own Wikipedia article - besides the report of the sale in Publisher's Weekly, there is a full article on the store in Susquehanna Life and there is a brief write-up in PA Eats - it is also listed in Indie Bound (although this may be considered a trivial mention) - so there is some coverage out there, but not much for a store that has been in business for over 100 years - my feeling is weak keep - Epinoia (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This close to the tipping point for a consensus to delete, but let's see if we can get a clearer picture with another week of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The business has certainly been around for a while – I had no difficulty finding a reference to it from 1925. And there are more sources to be found such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary DVR[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, invented term? ViperSnake151 Talk 02:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term isn’t made up, but seems barely notable. You could stick ‘proprietary’ in front of lots of terms but that’s not really the basis for an article. Some of this article looks like original research or commentary to me. There may be some content which, if sourced, could be merged into Video copy detection or one of the existing articles on copyright. Mccapra (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather poor WP:ESSAY where someone seems to be mad that security camera recording standards aren't the same from a few years ago...but the market has gotten to the point where nobody would support only one media player/format now anymore (if you're still using Windows Media Player in 2019, your organization probably needs an IT tongue-lashing). This is a seriously out-of-date article that needs major updating if it's to be kept (and it also needs any source...it's zero-sourced). Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems more like this should be on Digital video recorder rather than a separate article. Hintswen Talk | Contribs 14:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced opinion from 2006. A properly referenced discussion of the issues presented here could be included in Closed-circuit television#Retention, storage and preservation or Digital video_recorder#File formats, resolutions and file systems, however with no references there's nothing to merge, it's also not clear what the appropriate redirect would be. This article is really only about DVR as used by CCTV systems, as it's only such DVR systems that appear to use proprietary formats.----Pontificalibus 15:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. His career does not create a presumption of notability, and adequate sources have not been found to support notability per WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Tabb[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable American football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He did garner some significant coverage. See, e.g., this two-page profile (pt 1-pt 2). Of course, significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources is needed. I will reserve judgment to see if others can find more coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete According to the NFL site [45] he never played in an NFL game. There's a lack of non-routine coverage to meet the GNG. The article mentioned above is from a local paper about the end of his college career and is not enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barring further sources coming to light, there's not enough to pass WP:GNG. The article linked in my earlier comment represents significant coverage, but GNG requires such sources in multiple reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John C. McLaughlin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two pro-forma obituaries do not sufficient notability make, I'm sorry to say. No indication of any further coverage, or anything touching WP:NPROF for his professional life. Wikipedia is not the right place for this memorial. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added 12 reliably-published, in-depth, and independent reviews of three of his books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't quite see how it does, actually. Which point are you aiming at - 3? The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Reviews exist, but the majority of them seem to be meh to middling; and I wouldn't agree that they demonstrate a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". One would expect that conclusion to be explicitly drawn somewhere (e.g., an in-depth obituary would have been the place). - To put it another way, a dozen reviews which do not add up to a an assessment of the work as significant, do not satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4(c) The person's works have won significant critical attention. It's not important to me whether the reviewers liked the work, only that the reviews are in-depth. Alternatively, if you like, you can view this as coverage towards WP:GNG: we now have (including the two obituaries) 14 non-trivial independently and reliably published sources with in-depth coverage of the subject and his works, not just two. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, 4(c) would work better. I'm not set up to fight too much against inclusion of academics in any case :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the sources recently added by David Eppstein demonstrate that McLaughlin qualifies for notability as per WP:AUTHOR 4(c). Krakkos (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the record that Krakkos is the article's creator. –David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough reviews to qualify. Haukur (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY after work by David_Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Bell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had a decent career as a wide receiver for an FCS school (see here and here), including selection as a first team All-Pioneer League player, but that's not enough to qualify under WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. And I am not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources of the type needed to pass under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and lacks the coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Lee Adams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of the rare convenient cases where I can just point at the sources and say "zero indication of independent coverage". Really, it's the perfect storm down there. Could not reach WP:NBIO with a spring-loaded pole. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:BASIC. Article was originally a redirect to Wiwibloggs, but a rudimentary search finds his opinion on Eurovision matters quoted in a major newspaper of record, which I have added to the article, and this. Possibly passes WP:JOURNALIST for his 5-year stint at Time, columns written for The New York Times and others; and CREATIVE for starting a notable niche blog, the article of which isn't appropriate to place all the biographical detail. StonyBrook (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #2 does not add anything; it's an interview with the guy about Eurovision. People having their opinion quoted is NOT in itself evidence of notability. The WPost article I can't view because it chokes on my browser settings. Can you quote some pertinent material in there that covers Adams? BTW, I don't see which of the four points at WP:JOURNALIST/WP:CREATIVE (same section) a 5-year employment at Time is supposed to satisfy? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WaPo: "I think the English have a complex; they need to stop blaming Europe and look inside themselves," said William Lee Adams, the American editor and chief of wiwibloggs.com, a Eurovision fan site. "I mean, have you seen Bonnie Tyler? She looks like a reanimated corpse on stage. That’s just not going to stand up to Sweden. She was big in the ’80s, but someone needs to tell them this is 2013." He is being quoted here as a top reviewer of Eurovision in the English language, which I think is significant. The interview in NPR adds to that assessment. Regarding WP:CREATIVE, The person is regarded as an important figure, in this case in regards to his focus on Eurovision, or is widely cited by peers or successors, could be said about being quoted on said Eurovision; The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which I would argue can be applied to Wiwibloggs. Your point is well taken on Time, but it can be added into the mix. StonyBrook (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Keep. As a crazed Eurovision fan I can assure you that William Lee Adams is one of the most relevant figures in the Eurovision world nowadays. His 5 years in Time are hardly relevant to why he would be considered a notable character, but since he's a really prominent figure in BBC nowadays (specifically in the context of Eurovision) and Wiwibloggs is an extremely popular news outlet that Adams founded and now owns and runs. I'd like to add that he also manages a YouTube channel with approx. 80 million total views, which together with his precedence in the field of ESC coverage probably makes it qualify for W:N. He should definitely be considered WP:CREATIVE anyway, because he falls under criteria #1, #2:

- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors (eurovision.tv often refers to articles written by him and other news sites tend to interview him about subjects pertaining to Eurovision).

- The person is known for originating a significant new [...] concept (Eurovision-centered coverage was not a thing when William Lee Adams founded Wiwibloggs, and he was the first of many to create a site based around this niche topic).

I agree with the previously stated argument in this matter. The page should stay as we're talking about someone who not only has created a website present on all major social media platforms where it achieved major success within its genre, but also is prominently featured on professional articles and other matters. He's co-writing for important websites such as Billboard and furthermore was included in a show on Swedish television or interviewed for other channels such as an Ukrainian news programme. Taking into consideration his recent activity as well as the success his work spawns on a global scale, I vote Keep.

Not seeing any convincing policy-based arguments here. None of the sources provided, or newly added, demonstrate that he has received in-depth coverage from independent sources. Passing mentions, list entires and bio stubs by employers don't do the job. And "I've heard of this person and am a fan of what he talks about" doesn't either. His blog may be notable; he has not been shown to be. Sources or bust, people. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable here - popularity does not establish notability - no substantial coverage in the references per WP:BASIC, many refs are to his own articles and social media: WP:REFBOMBING in order to WP:MASK lack of notability - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a blogger about reality shows. How is that notable? Bearian (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Cavaccini[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently self created article; does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search finds local coverage including current candidature for county level representation, which again, does not meet WP:NPOL Melcous (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, agreed on failing to meet NPOL. creffett (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of entitling him to have a Wikipedia article, but the sourcing is not getting him over WP:GNG — it consists entirely of primary source content on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media being shown. And Melcous is also correct that the reliable source coverage that does show up in a Google search is related entirely to his as yet non-winning candidacy in a county-level election, which is not the kind of coverage that changes the equation as being a candidate in a local election does not clear our notability standards either. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Quite apart from COI issues, he is clearly a NN local historian. Most local politicians are NN, even if they were elected. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw one source of note but overall this is just promotion and puffery based on local coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tonto Natural Bridge. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gowan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not even make a claim to notability. This guy was someone who lived off isolated in a cabin. His existence was noted in a small town newspaper where he lived, but he did nothing that even remotely comes close to showing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this source [46] from find a grave. That is not considered a reliable source. It focuses Gowan on the history of the Tonto Natural Bridge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does have local interest, but stops short of any wider interest. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have been renowned for his supposed discovery of Tonto Natural Bridge e.g. [47],[48], [49].----Pontificalibus 12:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the second and third refs above are only mentions, the first is a very in-depth source. In addition, he is mentioned at length in an Arizona Republic article in 1938 on the death of his nephew, David Gowan Goodfellow (see here), there's also a nice article in The San Bernadino County Sun, here, and another in the Republic, here, and this in The Brownsville Herald, which was also printed in other papers such as The Cincinnati Enquirer. Then there is this article in Camden NJ's Courier-Post. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is the interesting confusion over his death in the Arizona Republic, where he was confused with his nephew see this, but the confusion was corrected in an unsigned (at least I can't find the end of the letter) letter to the editor.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As far as I can see he was merely a NN homesteader. If the natural bridge is notable, there might be merit in a brief merge to the article on it as its finder. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tonto Natural Bridge where he is already mentioned in the history section. He doesn't seem to be very significant beyond discovering this feature; I don't see enough to justify an article. MB 21:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.